Can we have an intelligent debate on the actions taken in Libya?

[Paradoxical]

I don't want to hear any cliches or personal attacks. I want actual logical arguments for or against intervention. I want the explanations to be more than a sentence. This is a complex socio-political situation that requires a thorough and comprehensive argument.


For those who choose to compare the US's actions in Libya to Iraq, I am failing to understand their arguments. Iraq was not in the middle of an intense and uncertain civil war when we bombed Baghdad. Iraqis were not asking for international assistance. The Libyan rebels are. We bombed Baghdad with little regard for the safety of civilians and little justification for doing so. We basically leveled the city. In Libya, a multinational force attacked strategic military strongholds of the Libyan government because the Libyan government refused to cease attacking civilian protesters and rebels.

And now we are seeing that the Libyan government is calling for an official cease fire since we have successfully damaged their military infrastructure.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/20/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1

The Libyan military on Sunday called an immediate cease-fire after allied forces pounded one of its convoys near Benghazi and, according to U.S. officials, significantly degraded the regime's air defenses.

This military intervention was the result of international cooperation. The same could not be said about Iraq.

On top of the recent military intervention, multiple countries have been flying aid into the Eastern regions of Libya to assist the protesters and rebel forces.

This has been a comprehensive plan to both help equip the rebel forces and protect innocent civilians from attack.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. No. It's always going to be 2003 here...

...and every president is always going to be Bush, until the days the lights finally get turned off.

[BeFree]

2. Questions

Who are the rebels?
Who are their leaders?
Who is financing them?
What kind of country do they propose to have if they win?

[Paradoxical]

6. It's difficult to pin point their leaders. But here's a brief explanation...

http://www.news.com.au/world/ferocious-battles-in-libya-as-national-council-meets-for-first-time/story-e6frfkyi-1226016536676

"The council declares it is the sole representative all over Libya," former justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil told a news conference, reading from a prepared statement."


http://ntclibya.org/english/


The Council’s statement

"In this important historical juncture which Libya is passing through right now, we find ourselves at a turning point with only two solutions. Either we achieve freedom and race to catch up with humanity and world developments, or we are shackled and enslaved under the feet of the tyrant Mu’ammar Gaddafi where we shall live in the midst of history. From this junction came the announcement of the Transitional National Council, a step on the road to liberate every part of the Libyan lands from Aamsaad in the east to Raas Ajdair in the west, and from Sirte in the north to Gatrun in the south. To liberate Libya from the hands of the tyrant Mu’ammar Gaddafi who made lawful to himself the exploitation of his people and the wealth of this country. The number of martyrs and wounded and the extreme use of excessive force and mercenaries against his own people requires us to take the initiative and work on the Liberalization of Libya from such insanities.

To reach this goal, the Transitional National Council announced its official establishment on 5th March 2011 in the city of Benghazi, stating its perseverance towards the aim of relocating its headquarters to our capital and bride of the Mediterranean, the city of Tripoli.

To connect with our people at home and abroad, and to deliver our voice to the outside world, we have decided to establish this website as the official window of communication via the world wide web.

May peace and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you
Long live Libya free and dignified"

[BeFree]

15. That's it, eh?

Nothing from the UN?
Did the UN have any stance on what the hoped for outcome will be other than anti-Gahaddafi?

What has our state department said?

Who is financing the rebels?

Surely no one here is in favor of a war without knowing more facts?

I sure don't know enough and have read 50 threads about this matter and still have too little info to work with except history. And the history is not encouraging.

[Paradoxical]

17. I'm not in favor of a war until we know more. Absolutely.

If we are truly going to go 100% on this and risk needing a full scale land invasion, we need to know exactly who we are dealing with on both sides. We already know the Gahaddafi regime. But we don't know much about the rebels.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. That's the real problem.

IMO, this compares much more accurately to the intervention in Bosnia - a strong governmental force confronted by a relatively weak rebel force, and the government force indiscriminately attacking civilians in the rebel areas.

We weren't clear on who the opposition was there, either. The government was certain it was the only legitimate force, but undermined its own legitimacy by its brutality.

Does this mean if the sides seperate, that an international/UN force will have to put boots on the ground to keep them seperated? Is there any expectation of elections forcing out the offending government?

One of the precepts of Sun Tzu is to avoid conflict unless you know how it will end. We don't even know who all the players are.

[BeFree]

20. Yep

That's what I am thinking: who is it we are supporting?
In Bosnia the conflict went on for years before our intervention and there was much discussion before we did start bombing.

I understand a no-fly zone, but this ground campaign is going to far.

And in the no-fly aspect I would support only defense measures if our planes were attacked.

Remember, too, bush was all buddy buddy with gaddafi a few years ago.

[riverwalker]

26. this is not rocket science

Who are the rebels?
People who have lived for 40 years under the thumb of a homicidal lunatic. A psychotic who wrote a "Green Book" of rules for everyone to live by and how they should worship their leader. The "rebels" would be any human being with a brain. The "rebels" are teachers, doctors, shopkeepers, electricians, students who have been inspired by the events in Egypt and Tunisia, and overcame the fear barrier.

Who are their leaders?
As in the Egyptian revolution, some movements do not have a charismatic Pied Piper "leader". Who is your "leader" when you resist oppression? Do you need a "leader" to tell you to remove someones boot off your back? It is possible that sometimes a population can reach a breaking point, and a simultaneous conclusion, without a "leader" to tell them what they need. The 100th monkey business, and all that.

Who is financing them?
You mean who is supplying the 30 year old broken rifles, the duct taped shoes, the garbage can road blocks, and the watered down bean soup? I don't know, but if they are throwing rocks at tanks, the supply line is pretty sparse, I'd say.

What kind of country do they propose to have if they win?
They have not yet prepared a Power Point presentation "Our New Nation" for you to approve of, things have been pretty hectic. Words like "Freedom" and "Democracy" have been used. Keep in mind, there is no political structure in Libya, just Gaddafi and his "Green Book". They will be starting from scratch, give them a break. Our 20 years of cheap oil orgy was at their expense. We created the monster, we are morally already involved up to our necks.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. How do you know that's who they are? You're just guessing. NO ONE knows

who they are.

[LanternWaste]

54. I don't think it's so much as guess as it is...

I don't think it's so much as guess as it is valid conjecture with resultant hypothesis.

[BeFree]

30. Good answers

And my take away is that we will be in Libya for a long, long time before we can leave.

Which, according to recent history, bodes ill for the people there.
Remember how the same type of arguments were made before the Iraq invasion?
And that way too many claimed that under Saddam they were better off?

Anyway, this is one of those cases of: "Shoot first, answer questions later."

You can understand why people are against this action, right?
Or do you consider us as an enemy?

[damntexdem]

35. The Libyan people will have to figure all that out ...

once they get rid of the murderer who has degraded their country for decades.

[BeFree]

43. Like in Iraq?

Is recent history any guide?
Is oil a part of why the revolt now?
Did you know the US was buddying up to and being diplomatic with ghaddafi just a few years ago?
Why did that fail?

[CJvR]

36. Answers.

"Who are the rebels?" - The people of Libya.
"Who are their leaders?" - They don't really have any, a major problem.
"Who is financing them?" - Noone, another major problem.
"What kind of country do they propose to have if they win?" - One that is Gaddafi-free, since they are the ones with 41 years experience of Gaddafi rule I trust their judgement on that issue.

[BeFree]

41. So, what is the outcome?

How long will we be there?
What kind of government will take form?
How many of the people are wanting an armed intervention by the UN? Half?

If the people waited around for 41 years under ghaddafi, why now did they revolt?
Was there foreign backing for the revolt?
Who stands to profit most from ghaddafi gone?

[CJvR]

48. OK...

"How long will we be there?" - Who knows? A safe bet is longer...
"What kind of government will take form?" - A Gaddafi free one if the Libyans have any say about it.
"How many of the people are wanting an armed intervention by the UN?" - Difficult to say, they sure didn't want it while they thought they were winning but Gaddafi's recent success changed things a bit.
"If the people waited around for 41 years under ghaddafi, why now did they revolt?" - The Tunisians and Egyptians gave the Libyans something they hadn't had for a long time - Hope.
"Was there foreign backing for the revolt?" - No, unfortunately. Had there been the initial surge just might have toppled Gaddafi.
"Who stands to profit most from ghaddafi gone?" - The people of Libya obviously.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. How does 41 years of Gaddafi prepare them for a post-Gaddafi world?

IF Gaddafi is deposed i can predict what will happen. The nation will be factionalized between tribes and clans; between secularists and Islamists; between the urban and rural populations; between pro-West and anti-West factions; betweem those who would nationalize the oil and those who would invite BP and Shell to take over; between the isolationists and those who would cross their borders to settle scores with their neighbors.

The odds of Libya quickly settling into a being a pro-West democracy are vanishingly small - they've known nothing but authoritarian rule since...well, forever. And because of western sanctions against them for so long, they don't even have a cadre of western-educated young folk who have been exposed to functioning democracies.

Remember what happened in Afghanistan, when we supported one faction against another? (Of course, the faction we didn't support was democratic, western educated, liberal and socialist, supported by the Russians, so that doesn't count.)

Meddling in other nations affairs may, sometimes, be justified - but is ALWAYS fraught with unforeseen dangers.

[CJvR]

49. Possibly.

The implosion of authoritarian regimes tends to be messy, no way to avoid it except aiding Gaddafi to restore order. I doubt anyone except his dictatorial pals around the world favor that approach?

[BeFree]

50. Pals like us?

Who bought the oil?
Who supplied him with weapons?
Who sat back for 41 years and let him do his thing?

You have no answers but to crate more havoc.
Sorry, I wish you had a real solution but you do not.

[CJvR]

52. And you do?

"Who bought the oil?" - Everyone.
"Who supplied him with weapons?" - The Soviet union. If you don't belive that I suggest you take a look at the actual libyan equipment.
"Who sat back for 41 years and let him do his thing?" - Well the mad dog was in the doghouse for most of that time as far as the west was concerned. Indeed the only one who did anything at all about Mad Dog was Reagan, and he was predictably critisised for it. Even today there seems to be some who would seem to prefer that the Gaddafi regime is extended even longer.

"You have no answers but to crate more havoc." - I think Gaddafi have created more than enough havoc, this operation is more along the line of shutting down the havoc generator. There are two options really. Stand aside and let Gaddafi massacre the Libyan revolution, or not.
"Sorry, I wish you had a real solution but you do not." - And you do? What is that? Do nothing and have a replay of Saddams war on the Kurds and Shias? I don't think letting Gaddafi pull a Saddam is a satisfactory solution but you might disagree.

[CJvR]

53. Libyan weapons...

Libyan Army

MBT:
145 T72 (Sov)
280 T62 (Sov)
460 T54/55 -250 in reserve (Sov)

AFV:
740 BMP1 (Sov)
540 BTR50/60 (Sov)
100 OT-62/64 (Cze/Pol)
118 EE11 URUTU (Bra)
35 M113 (USA)

Armored cars:
242 BRDM2 (Sov)
370 EE9 CASCAVEL (Bra)
100 FIAT 6616 (Ita)
200 FIAT 6614 (Ita)
AML90 (Fra)

Artillery:
18 M109 155mm (USA)
158 PALMARIA 155mm (Ita)
55 2S3 AKATSIA 152mm (Sov)
120 DANA 152mm -wheeled vehicle (Cze)
The towed artillery is a mix of 650 US and Soviet antiques mostly.

Army aviation:
5 AB206 (USA)
8 Alouette III (Fra)
16 CH47C (USA)


Libyan Navy

Frigates:
2 KONI (Sov)

Corvettes:
3 NANUCHKA II (Sov)

Light Forces:
9 COMBATTANTE II (Fra/FRG?)
12 OSA II (Sov)

Minewarfare:
8 NATYA (Sov)

Amphibious:
3 POLNOCNY -LCT (Sov)
4 Ibn Al Idrissi (Pol)
20 C107 -LCT (???)

Naval aviation:
12 Mil4 -ASW (Sov)
12 SA.321 Super Frelon -ASW/SAR (Fra)


Libyan Airforce

Combat:
15 SU 24 Fencer -Strike (Sov)
80 MIG 23 (Sov)
40 SU 20/22 (Sov)
16 MIG 21 (Sov)
20 Mirage F1 (Fra)
26 J1 Jastreb -COIN (Yug)

AF-Transport:
7 C130H (USA)
15 L-410 (Cze)
1 Boeing 707 (USA)
10 AN 26 (Sov)
14 IL 76 (Sov)

AF-Helicopters:
4 Alouette III (Fra)
7 MI 8 (Sov)
40 Mi 24/35 (Sov)
12 A109 (U-K)
42 MI 4 (Sov)

AF-Training:
15 MIG 23U (Sov)
6 Mirage F1B (Fra)
84 GALEB (Yug)
4 MIG 25U (Sov)
12 CM 170 MAGISTER (Fra)
136 L39 ALBATROS (Cze)
80 SF-260W (Ita)

[silver10]

3. Yawn

[Shiver]

32. What a well-thought out and reasoned response.

Truly, you are a credit to your side of this debate.

[joshcryer]

4. I've been trying really hard to have one of those all day. I've given up.

I think you are a glutton for punishment with how you had those kinds of discussions over the nuclear reactor problem, and now are asking for more on Libya. :P

[Paradoxical]

18. I guess I'm just a masochist.

[tabatha]

5. I posted my thoughts here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x692212

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=695634&mesg_id=695807

I am against war, including the war that Gaddafi is waging against his people.

I understand that there are other countries that have problems.

But Tunisia and Egypt (and possibly Yemen) have managed to sort theirs out diplomatically.
It is best if that is the path in every case.
Although there were riots in South Africa, it was all resolved without war. Thank God.
And I think Sudan was split into north and south, and had an election?

Gaddafi is not open to negotiations.
There was criticism for not helping in Rwanda.
Hopefully the lesson has been learned.

I just hope that the outcome is good.
But I was thankful, as were the Libyan people, that the "massacre march" was stopped.

[TomClash]

7. Supplementing befree's questions

Why was Qaddafi's compound hit if regime change is not the goal? Why didn't the President go to Congress for authority? If the rebels cannot depose him will the US use ground forces?

In the rush to war little has been answered.

[Paradoxical]

8. You pose an interesting question to me.

What are we suppose to do if the rebel forces cannot accomplish their mission?

The answer is I'm not entirely sure.

[damntexdem]

38. Regime change SHOULD be the goal.

At least the U.S. is acting like it is, even if it is to weak-kneed to say so.

[CJvR]

40. Gunning for Gaddafi

"Why was Qaddafi's compound hit if regime change is not the goal?" - Hitting CCC facilities is SOP, that Gaddafi have to be at such facilities if he is to lead is a fortunate coincident... ;-)
"Why didn't the President go to Congress for authority?" - Does he need to? It is not a formal war and the Prez is the US CIC.
"If the rebels cannot depose him will the US use ground forces?" - Probably not, they are a bit too thinly streached at the moment.

[TomClash]

42. Harmonizing your responses

leads me to continue to believe this maneuver is questionable.

Your second response is wrong. The Constitution doesn't say you go to Congress only to declare a "formal" war, whatever that is. The CIC has no authority to declare war.

On more thing. Reagan bombed Qaddafi's compound in 1986, killing several members of his family. Two years later, Pan Am flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland. 270 people were killed.

[snappyturtle]

47. +1 nt

[northoftheborder]

10. Quadafi has admitted personally that he gave the order to

shoot down the plane over Scotland. That was a terrorist act. He is a terrorist. Plus probably insane. Probably does not compareto the evil of Saddam Hussein however. But we destroyed a whole country to get rid of Saddam. We are not doing that here. What gives me pause, is, who are the rebels, who is their leader? Do we know that? And if Quadafi quits or is eliminated, does the rest of his gov., his son, take over? If all Quadafi leaders surrender, then who of the rebels will lead, will they be open to a democratic process? Who knows, or does anybody have ideas as to the answers to these questions?


some of you provided answers above while I was posing mine. Thanks

[Lasher]

11. That is so lame.

I'm sure you are being sincere when you say you cannot understand other people's arguments.

[Paradoxical]

12. I said no personal attacks. I said I wanted thorough explanations.

If you want to participate, give your arguments. I want to hear them.

[Lasher]

19. I don't do personal attacks. That's an observation about your argument.

You seem strongly biased in favor of the Libyan rebels. I can't tell from your vague profile, so I need to ask: Are you from east Libya, or do you have friends or relatives living there?

[Paradoxical]

21. No I am not from Libya and I do not have family there.

Could you explain to me your position on the rebels?

[Lasher]

23. My position on the rebels is, it is not in America's interest to get involved in another war.

We can't save the world. I expect my government to be for Americans first.

[Paradoxical]

25. So you're an isolationist?

[Lasher]

28. You are attempting to label me.

That is a logical fallacy. You said you were interested in logical arguments but you are unwilling to comply with the standard you have invoked for others.

[Paradoxical]

29. I asked you if you are an isolationist.

I didn't say that you are one.

But based on your position that the US military should not be involved in any conflict that doesn't threaten Americans is a position of an isolationist.

Do you support any military intervention in foreign affairs under any circumstances?

[Lasher]

37. No, I am not an isolationist.

I think we should help other countries like Haiti and Japan if we can afford it. If you support conflicts that don't threaten Americans, that might mean you are a neoconservative. Are you in favor of US world conquest?

I would not rule out any US military intervention in foreign affairs but you know that already.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. I doubt it.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. my two cents

I honestly believe it is to early to judge this decision. POTUS has more information than we do and he also tends to be thinking three moves ahead in any given situation.


If we get in, and get out quickly with minimal casualties on both sides I could end up supporting it.

If we end up stuck in a long drawn out conflict with high numbers of causalities on both sides there is no way I can support it.

Right now I am going to have to see the results before I can decide to support it or not. For the moment, the President has the benefit of the doubt. Or, at least the benefit of my doubt.

[Paradoxical]

16. We share similar sentiments.

I am inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I'm being naive.

[Old and In the Way]

22. More fallout from the Bush administration's Iraq War fiasco.

There's obviously a deep cynicism and mistrust of our government that we can actually have righteous motives to aid the people of Libya. There's no doubt on my position on the Iraq War....I've got a pretty lengthy history of posts that spell out my opposition pretty clearly. But Obama isn't Bush and Libya isn't Iraq. I can support this multi-lateral UN action without an iota of imperialistic guilt.

Could I be wrong? sure...but only time will tell. If I'm wrong and we find out that there was a hidden agenda to grab their resources or take over Libya for US interests or make the lives of Libyans worse than their current situation, I will have no problems apologizing for my flawed position. I'd hope that those who argue against it will do the same should the actual facts eventually prove to favor this UN action.

[Ramulux]

24. I think its like this

The world is not in great shape as a whole. We are suffering from a world-wide economic recession and things like over-population, failed trade policies, starvation, and totalitarian/corrupt governments are making things very hard for everyone on this planet. Obviously, we would like to solve all these problems, we would like to help the millions of people living in poverty and suffering under brutal dictatorships.

But we cant help everyone and whenever we try to help in a militaristic/violent fashion it just happens to almost always turn out terribly. The USA and the UN have been meddling in other countries affairs for a very long time. You could make the argument that we do so with good intentions, but it almost always results in a negative change for the population. Look at the history of our relationship with various South American countries. We have subjugated an entire continent and only in the past 2 decades or so have a handful of the countries there attempted to bring about economic independence and security.

The point is that we fuck shit up all the time. We make impassioned, eloquent speeches about the suffering of people in these nations and then we go in whether its with economists and politicians or soldiers and tanks, and we fuck shit up. The reality right now is that Gaddafi is in charge of Libya, he is the leader of the country. Regardless of whether we like the fact that he placed himself there during a military coup, doesn't change the fact that he is legally and politically in charge. What that means is that we have 2 options, we can respect the sovereignty of the Libyan nation or we can ignore the existence of the Libyan government as a legitimate entity and declare war on them. We can make whatever excuse we want about why we are doing it, but bombing a nations military is an act of war.

This begs the question, why are we declaring war on Libya and not any of the other nations with leaders who have engaged in atrocities similar to what Gaddafi has done. It needs to be asked and many people on this website just ignore this basic important question. If we invade Libya and not Bahrain even though there is little difference between the situations there, we are making the case that Libya is somehow more important and more deserving of the attention of the international community. From there you can extrapolate that the international community cares more about the suffering of the Libyan people than that of say, the N. Korean people who have lived in a nation-wide concentration camp for decades. Why is Libya important? Why do they deserve the attention and resources that other countries maybe need even more than them?

As a nation we have to understand the consequences and implied statements of belief that stem from decisions like choosing to declare war on one country and not another.

My belief is simple, what is happening in Libya is horrible but it is no more horrible than what citizens of a dozen other nations on this planet have faced for years. I do not believe it is right of us to expend precious resources and currency to invade and topple a foreign government in Libya, I believe it implies that we are choosing favorites and making ignorant, callous, politically motivated, wrongly utilitarian, decisions that show our lack of regard for the suffering of people in other nations, suffering that in many cases has gone on longer and in a more extreme fashion than that of Libya.

[dennis4868]

31. Ummm in case you haven't notice....

You are in DU where facts and rational argument left us mzny many months ago....it's all about Obama and how he is the next hitler or something like that...so please take your facts out if here and don't let the door..

[MikeW]

33. ok here goes

Someone will still need to take out G - lets face it hes not going to leave on his own.

According to the news - Retired Generals, they find it unlikely that the rebels will be powerful enough

despite help from the air to beat the majority of G's forces/military.

If thats true then the whole game changes, means someone on the coalition will need to put boots or tanks

on the ground to either force him out or take him out.

He's not going to go on his own, he knows he would prob. face the Hague if he did.

[LAGC]

55. That's a good point.

Some country needs to offer Gadhafi asylum, or he'll never go peacefully. He will fight to the death, since he'll likely never see freedom again if he is captured.

[damntexdem]

34. Yeah, Libya is a sovereign nation -- and the sovereign people asked for the intervention ...

against a murderous, delegitimized government. And the U.S. has not sent in ground troops, nor have others who are intervening. Although that would be acceptable, the U.S. dare not do so because it is already stretched so thin because of its illegal invasion of Iraq and the way the Bushistas screwed the pooch in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But missiles and airplane attacks DO provide substantial support for the Libyan people in their own struggle against Ghadaffi. So what's the problem?

Sure, I understand and respect that pacifists are against even this use of military power; but most of us are not pacifists.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Let's talk about it without doing so through the prism of Iraq

One major problem is that people are conflating "civilians" with "rebels". Those who have taken up arms against their government, attacked forces of that government, taken territory and declared a provisional government that has sought--and gotten--international recognition are no longer "civilians". They may be morally right, but shrieking with outrage that Qaddafi attacks an armed insurgent force bent on ousting him is just plain silly.

It is now a civil war, and the casualties since it morphed into one seem to be combatants on both side. There does not seem to be concerted killing of civilians at the moment; Qaddafi is trying to militarily defeat a military force. It's a civil war now, and I don't see how we have the moral right to intervene. Even if we did, we should state it as such and act as such, which we haven't done; we've gotten a resolution authorizing military force--on a very broad and ill-defined basis--to protect civilians, yet we have attacked military ground forces (the French attacked armored units) which were being used against the armed forces of the rebellion.

The barbaric metric of what level of civilian casualties deserves intervention is rather inescapable, yet from the sources I find, the only civilian protesters shot were weeks ago and not great numbers. I, too, would be for some kind of intervention if wholesale slaughter was the case, but at this point we're not preventing any of it, we'd be punishing for past acts.

The UN is choosing sides while claiming not to. If there's an arms embargo, it should be for both sides. There is nothing in the Resolution mandating helping the rebels, yet that seems to be the obvious intent here, and hiding behind civilian deaths that are no longer happening to play favorites in an internal dispute within a sovereign nation is NOT what the UN Resolution purports itself to be. If we look the other way and cheat with international laws repeatedly, it'll be easier to do it in the future.

I don't like selective use of the law; it is a crime against civilization. If this means that despicable people remain in power sometimes, that's an internal affair in the country. We are cynically attempting to take care of old business and knock off someone we don't like. He's a skunk, but I still don't see how we have the right to intervene and even if we do, we've chosen a mealy-mouthed and dishonest way to do so. The ends do not justify the means in my worldview; laws are inconvenient little things, but if they're respected, there will be more orderliness and decency in our future.

Thanks for inviting people to debate this in a proper way, and I hope this meets with success and wide participation.

(edited for grammar: I added an "s"...)

[sad sally]

44. Why wasn't this intelligent debate you call for taken up in the

United States of America's government - the US House of Representatives and Senate - before the United States deployed its military force against another Country that did not attack it? Okay, I do know about the UN Resolution, but what about a US Resolution? Just shows how little the American people mean to the American administration.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. Wouldn't your time be better spent writing a catchy song to go with the war?

[Paradoxical]

51. Read the OP again and fuck off.

[LAGC]

56. Wow, that was kind of rude.

Don't you think your OP is kind of trying to justify warmongering?

I don't think McCamy's reply was that out of line considering...